PRESS
RELEASE
Press/159MOORE CITES ROLE OF LEGISLATORS IN WTO2
December 1999

Director-General
Mike Moore today, 2 December, lauded the first ever assembly of legislators and
parliamentarians held in parallel with a WTO Ministerial Conference, and expressed the
hope that this becomes a permanent feature of future Conferences.

Mr. Moore
underlined the democratic foundation of the WTO, in which every decision has to be reached
through consensus, and agreements have to be ratified by elected congresses or parliaments
of member states.

He said
that members are firmly resolved to negotiate a balanced package in Seattle, and
reiterated his call for a substantial trade and technical assistance package for the
least-developed countries.

It is a
useful initiative to have in parallel to this Ministerial Conference, this the first
assembly of elected legislators.

I get
deeply offended when people say the WTO is not democratic. Take the case of the Indian
Ambassador in Geneva. It takes about 300 million people to elect a Government in India.
That Government survives at the pleasure of its elected MP's. The Government through its
Minister, who is accountable to Cabinet, his Prime Minister, his party, his caucus and to
the Parliament and then to his electors at home and to the wider vote to enable his
government to function. That's accountability. That's how it should be. And that is how it
is for most countries who are members of the WTO. The system changes from nation to
nation, but the principles of accountability are the same.

The WTO
is member driven, thus driven by Governments, Congresses and Parliaments. Every two years
our Ministers meet to give us guidance. Our agreements must be agreed and ratified by
members and Parliaments.

So this
assembly of parliamentarians and elected legislators is an important and, I hope,
permanent part of our process.

Some of
those who protest miss these fundamental steps by which we operate. We operate from and by
consensus. Any nation can and does block progress. Any nation can pull out of the WTO
given six month's notice.

One
member of parliament said to me it's fine you are talking to non-government organizations,
how about government organizations, it's us who sustain the government of the day. He was
right. We should do both.

Equally,
when I was talking about non-governmental organizations and their proper, correct and
democratic influence on governments, an ambassador from a non-resident country asked us at
the WTO to reach out more to him. As a government representative, about 30 countries
cannot even afford to keep missions in Geneva. So, we have reached out. I've been in the
job a few months, my deputies started last week. But we organised a seminar for
non-residents to brief their officials fully on what is happening in Seattle. We have web
pages, reference centres and are using the new technologies to keep in touch.

One issue
that raises its head frequently is sovereignty. Is the nation state surrendering its
legitimate rights and prerogatives to global institutions?

That's a
valid question. I come from a small country but I've always seen my nation's integrity and
independence enhanced by international institutions, treaties and agreements.

In the
modern world we know that without co-operation and agreements sovereign governments cannot
function and advance their national interests.

No
congress or parliament alone can guarantee clean air or water, even run a tax system, an
airline, combat AIDS and cancer without the co-operation of others.

But the
base constituency must be the nation state. We in the WTO are member driven, rules driven.
Our member states direct our progress. And that's how it should be.

I hope in
the future to spend more time with congressional committees and parliamentary groups,
because that is where the greatest assembly of popular opinion resides. That's where those
who correctly want to scrutinise, criticise and improve our play, live.

It's an
awesome task, our total expenditure is less than the IMF's travel budget. The World
Wildlife Fund has a budget three times ours.

But
within our constraints of time and resources I will do better. I never refuse to meet with
elected politicians if I am in Geneva and it is possible.

The word
millennium is overdone, but we do face a new century so it is worthwhile reflecting on the
future and to see what we can learn from the past.

The WTO,
earlier the GATT, was first envisaged by our brave parents who saw it as a sister
organization to the UN, ILO, IMF, and the World Bank. They served in uniform, my
generation serves in suites and ties. They lived through the great depression and saw how
it was prolonged and made more deadly because of protectionism. That depression and the
Treaty of Versailles made war almost inevitable and from that came the great tyrannies of
our age, fascism and marxism. They said never, never again and we and the other
institutions in the global architecture were created to be owned by the people via their
Governments.

During
this time, we have experienced the greatest period of sustained growth and rise in living
standards than at any time in our history.

This
incredible generation that did something else unique is world history. They the victors
held out their hands and forgave their adversaries, reached into their own pockets and
created the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe. The mirror opposite of what
happened in 1918. And it worked. Does anyone now think it would have been a better world
without the Marshall Plan? Does anyone think the world would be better without a European
Union? Should we NOT celebrate an enlarging European Union and a successful Japan? Would
it be better if China did not join the WTO? What's wrong with having Russia and China as
part of a rules-based system?

Our
system has done well. During the Asian crisis many predicted the end of the global economy
and suggested we had gone too far. Yet because of sound policy in the affected economies
and the generosity of the US, Japan and Europe who kept their markets open, Asia is coming
back. They held their nerve.

When the
Berlin wall came down, when Nelson Mandela was freed, when the Colonels went back into
their barracks, elsewhere, the world celebrated. They celebrated the universal values of
political and economic freedom. No one shouted, cursed and swore about the evils of
globalisation.

So here
we are at Seattle, 30,000 people, many even invited. We meet against a background of
hostility and anger. I know all our critics are not wrong, bad or mad. But just
occasionally we ought to remind ourselves of our core values and our core business.

Essentially,
we want more jobs and more successful businesses so we can get the tax take to pay for
these dreams we all have for health care, education and to look after the elderly.

I believe
that trade and business is the most powerful generator to achieve these ends.

Trade in
itself is not enough, too many countries are marginalised. One African Member pays up to
nine times more on debt repayments than on health. Cutting trade, preventing the spread of
ideas, medicine, literature and information and investment will not help, it will make it
worse. While we have our critics outside, over 1.5 billion people want to join. Why?
Several hundred Ministers and political leaders are here now in Seattle. Why? Because it
matters. I don't want to see us limp into the next century with a whine and a splutter.

We should
march boldly, recognising the contradictions and difficulties, but firmly resolved to
begin to negotiate a package text that is balanced. We have differences. That's
legitimate, welcome and not surprising.

We need
to ensure developing countries have a fairer place at the table. Especially the
least-developed nations who account for 0.5% of world trade, and when they have a
competitive export advantage they are frequently locked out. This is wrong.

Many
countries need time and technical assistance to digest and implement their commitments.
This can be done. We need to get closer on agriculture, investment, competition and use
this opportunity to advance win/win situations, in the transparency of government
procurement, trade facilitation and how that helps good governance.

We should
be decisive about market access, welcome what e-commerce can do for every nation and begin
to negotiate a balanced package within three years. I know of the interest sovereign
congresses and parliaments have in these subjects. In the end, they will have the decisive
say. Too much of this century was marked by force and coercion. We need to ensure that the
next century is one of persuasion, where differences are settled within institutional law,
through proper agreed dispute mechanisms.

This
works for the most mighty nation as it does for the most modest nation. It represents a
new enlightened age of international and civilized behaviour.

I'm proud to represent
an institution that is owned and driven by its member states. I am the Director-General.
I'm not really a Director, even less am I a General. I am, I guess, a navigator, a
facilitator and a public servant.

We should
this day pay our respects to our parents who in their wisdom gave birth, from the horror
of personal experience, to institutions like the GATT, now the WTO, so it can do its job
after instructions from governments and parliaments to bring order and the rule of law to
our commercial, political, cultural and social differences.